Andrew Green, Claimant/Appellant, v. Allied Waste North America and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED90322
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Andrew Green, Claimant/Appellant, v. Allied Waste North America and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED90322 Handdown Date: 11/06/2007 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Matthew R. Heeren Opinion Summary: Andrew Green appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission dismissing his application for review concerning his claim for unemployment benefits. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Green's appeal must be dismissed because he did not file his application for review with the commission in a timely fashion, depriving the commission and this court of jurisdiction over the case. Citation: Opinion Author: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concur. Opinion: Andrew Green (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) dismissing his application for review concerning his claim for unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.
A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, because he was discharged from his employment for misconduct connected with his work. He appealed to the Appeals Tribunal of the Division. On June 6, 2007, the Appeals Tribunal issued a decision dismissing Claimant's appeal. On August 7, 2007, Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission dismissed his application for review, concluding it was untimely. Claimant appeals to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. The Division asserts that Claimant's application for review to the Commission was untimely and thus, the Commission and this Court are without jurisdiction to review her case. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. In an unemployment case, a claimant has thirty (30) days from the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Section 288.200.1, RSMo 2000. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on June 6, 2007. The application for review was due thirty days later, on July 6, 2007. Section 288.200.1. Claimant filed his application for review on August 7, 2007, and it was untimely under section 288.200.1. The unemployment statutes fail to provide any exception to the thirty-day requirement. Without any provision for a late application for review, the failure to file a timely application for review divests the Commission of jurisdiction and it can only dismiss the application for review. McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000) This Court's jurisdiction is derived from that of the Commission, and if it lacks jurisdiction, then so do we. Blanchard v. Shurn & Associates, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 22, 24 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006). Accordingly, we must dismiss Claimant's appeal. The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450